Big Owners (of Objects) -- BPCS-L

from Al Macintyre

IBM class on Adv Sys Op taught me that when a user group owns excessive 
volume of objects, this leads to a performance hit.  What's excessive and 
what can we do about it without violating BPCS rules?  There's a report from 
GO DISKTASKS on object owner distribution.

SSA owns 36,300 objects

This is the BPCS user group - any object created by any BPCS user should 
belong to the group & any user should be able to access any object in the 
group.  BPCS security controls the actual running of BPCS software, but we 
have granted widespread command line authority, such as to RUNQRY that since 
made it into CL but the end departments prefer RUNQRY to options from BPCS 
user menus.  I can't see justifying lowering security in the name of 
performance.  

However, I tentatively plan to put secondary environments in different 
groups.  Since all environments share the same BMR libraries, I"ll leave them 
with SSA & make the secondary environments users secondary members of SSA 
group so as to access the BMR libraries, which may be a performance hit, 
offset by improving the production environment performance, by significantly 
lowering the SSA object ownership size.  Is that a smart plan?

If a secondary group owned the libraries that are common to all environments, 
such as our modifications & library of queries (whose contents I also plan to 
split into multiple libraries due to user confusion over which are for which 
environments), then this would mean we would not have the performance hit due 
to such a humongous volume of objects in one group, but there is another 
performance hit due to checking security for multiple user groups.  99% of 
our stuff is library list, not qualified.  Am I asking for more trouble than 
this is worth?

I am aware that one of the BPCS vendors has a product to analyse BPCS files 
needed for applications that we are not using, for the purpose of removing 
them from on-line.  I figure that more than half our BPCS objects fall into 
that category, but how much space do thousands of empty files occupy?.

QSECOFR owns 29,000 objects

This is a combination of IBM objects and MIS add-ons.  I'm tempted to start 
two dummy disabled group profiles to own the MIS objects, used in software 
development & general tools, not end user library lists.
a) those I expect we'll need for all time.
b) conversion tools which hopefully will go away some day.
This will reduce the load to what IBM thinks QSECOFR needs to own.

3rd place owner is 200 objects

Surprise was that some individual members of SSA group should own only their 
*MSGQ but I found some of them owning

work station *DTAARA
remembered keys *USRSPC
QDOC *FLR

So, are our numbers of objects owned by one profile typical or problematic?

Al
+---
| This is the BPCS Users Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to BPCS-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to BPCS-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to BPCS-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner: dasmussen@aol.com
+---